Something tells me axman would be an easy person to cheat.
Yep. Somehow I doubt that axman would feel exactly the same way that he feels now if he had to personally play Mr. Boettcher. I really would love to see axman on the opposite side of Boettcher on camera.
Maybe he is just saying that there is reasonable doubt. Obviously this is for the DCI to decide, but the evidence at least looks incriminating.
Wait, are we saying that Jared Boettcher is cheating? This is a massive thread, could someone please post the facts of this? It is possible, but if he were cheating, why does he always lose to Tom "The Boss" Ross? And don't give me a cutesy answer that it's because Tom is a boss.
Also, why was Alex Bertoncheatyface banned again?
It seems like Jared is looking at a card quickly, sliding it to the top, and then continuing to shuffle while leaving the card on top. Against some players, he probably can't be quite as obvious. Changing one card can win the game, but it also may not. One card is not enough to beat a Boss , but it is still cheating. Or else, we would play a different game where an opponent can always choose the top card of our library. This is a different game than I personally play.
Alex was caught doing the same things as before, essentially not putting cards back after a Brainstorm during a complicated stack, drawing 4 cards and putting 2 back off Brainstorm, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Something tells me axman would be an easy person to cheat.
Yep. Somehow I doubt that axman would feel exactly the same way that he feels now if he had to personally play Mr. Boettcher. I really would love to see axman on the opposite side of Boettcher on camera.
Maybe he is just saying that there is reasonable doubt. Obviously this is for the DCI to decide, but the evidence at least looks incriminating.
Wait, are we saying that Jared Boettcher is cheating? This is a massive thread, could someone please post the facts of this? It is possible, but if he were cheating, why does he always lose to Tom "The Boss" Ross? And don't give me a cutesy answer that it's because Tom is a boss.
Also, why was Alex Bertoncheatyface banned again?
It seems like Jared is looking at a card quickly, sliding it to the top, and then continuing to shuffle while leaving the card on top. Against some players, he probably can't be quite as obvious. Changing one card can win the game, but it also may not. One card is not enough to beat a Boss , but it is still cheating. Or else, we would play a different game where an opponent can always choose the top card of our library. This is a different game than I personally play.
Alex was caught doing the same things as before, essentially not putting cards back after a Brainstorm during a complicated stack, drawing 4 cards and putting 2 back off Brainstorm, etc.
You can't actually tell that he is looking at the card that he puts on the top.
Therefore there is no incriminating evidence (smoking gun, if you will). And yes it is for that reason that I've been arguing that
Maybe he is just saying that there is reasonable doubt
I think the problem that most of us have with Jared is that AT BEST, the shuffling is suspect. Even if he can't see the bottom card, why even shuffle in a manner that can be misconstrued as stacking? Give it 2-3 mashes, cut in half and give it back, there's nothing difficult about this. To make it worse, in the video evidence he looks down sometimes. Suspect shuffling has no place in MTG, it isn't difficult to shuffle in a manner that leaves no doubt that you were honest. This case could go either way and I won't be surprised either way.
The DCI investigation Boettcher is referring to was regarding Bribery and Collusion at an SCG Classic event, not the deck stacking that has been captured on video multiple times. He's stacking the deck, its incredibly obvious once the technique has been identified to see, and if you want a video breakdown of how the cheat works and how to identify it, here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEA2Gph-DW8
Watch his eyes in the videos, he's not looking at the deck to get information.
his shuffling technique does not "prove" he cheated.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you understand the difference between proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which I've seen you previously mention, and proof "beyond all reasonable doubt," which is the standard burden of proof for criminal convictions. When it comes to proof, even in the context of criminal trials, you don't have to dispel all possible doubts; just the reasonable ones.
Once you factor in that 1. this is not a criminal trial, and 2. this is just a discussion on an internet forum, it's also not really clear why a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard should even apply. Additionally, since this thread is grounded in speculative accusations, at best we're more akin to a grand jury, where the standard is mere probable cause.
I think this also explains why people get defensive when they are accused of witch-hunting: witch-hunting implies baseless accusation, but I don't see how anyone can view these videos and conclude that anyone who thinks Jared probably cheated is unequivocally incorrect. Maybe the term 'grand-jurying' is more appropriate, because I look at these videos and think to myself, if the DCI doesn't investigate this, there's something wrong with the system.
his shuffling technique does not "prove" he cheated.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you understand the difference between proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which I've seen you previously mention, and proof "beyond all reasonable doubt," which is the standard burden of proof for criminal convictions. When it comes to proof, even in the context of criminal trials, you don't have to dispel all possible doubts; just the reasonable ones.
Once you factor in that 1. this is not a criminal trial, and 2. this is just a discussion on an internet forum, it's also not really clear why a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard should even apply. Additionally, since this thread is grounded in speculative accusations, at best we're more akin to a grand jury, where the standard is mere probable cause.
I think this also explains why people get defensive when they are accused of witch-hunting: witch-hunting implies baseless accusation, but I don't see how anyone can view these videos and conclude that anyone who thinks Jared probably cheated is unequivocally incorrect. Maybe the term 'grand-jurying' is more appropriate, because I look at these videos and think to myself, if the DCI doesn't investigate this, there's something wrong with the system.
Great post. Again I'd ask axman, if he isn't cheating then what explains his shuffling technique? Particularly how it subtly changes from his deck to his opponents' such that one card is often moved to and kept at the top of his opponents' deck?
Part of creating a reasonable doubt is providing a plausible alternative explanation for the seemingly fishy behavior. I haven't seen that kind of alternative explanation from anyone here that is trying to play devil's advocate. Give me a logical alternative and I'd be a lot more doubtful about him being a cheater.
his shuffling technique does not "prove" he cheated.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you understand the difference between proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which I've seen you previously mention, and proof "beyond all reasonable doubt," which is the standard burden of proof for criminal convictions. When it comes to proof, even in the context of criminal trials, you don't have to dispel all possible doubts; just the reasonable ones.
Once you factor in that 1. this is not a criminal trial, and 2. this is just a discussion on an internet forum, it's also not really clear why a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard should even apply. Additionally, since this thread is grounded in speculative accusations, at best we're more akin to a grand jury, where the standard is mere probable cause.
I think this also explains why people get defensive when they are accused of witch-hunting: witch-hunting implies baseless accusation, but I don't see how anyone can view these videos and conclude that anyone who thinks Jared probably cheated is unequivocally incorrect. Maybe the term 'grand-jurying' is more appropriate, because I look at these videos and think to myself, if the DCI doesn't investigate this, there's something wrong with the system.
True. Perhaps "witch-hunt" was too strong of a word.
The main reason I used that word was simply because (to my knowledge) these accusations of cheating began 100% online. The accusations originated from people who made it their goal to thumb through video footage to find "speciousness activity" and label that activity as "cheating".
To my knowledge, there were zero real life complaints about his shuffling. I do not believe anyone asked him to shuffle differently and/or called a judge to question it.
Part of creating a reasonable doubt is providing a plausible alternative explanation for the seemingly fishy behavior. I haven't seen that kind of alternative explanation from anyone here that is trying to play devil's advocate. Give me a logical alternative and I'd be a lot more doubtful about him being a cheater.
Best I could come up with was post 275 of this thread, bottom of page 11.
Part of creating a reasonable doubt is providing a plausible alternative explanation for the seemingly fishy behavior. I haven't seen that kind of alternative explanation from anyone here that is trying to play devil's advocate. Give me a logical alternative and I'd be a lot more doubtful about him being a cheater.
Best I could come up with was post 275 of this thread, bottom of page 11.
Whoa, I just had a crazy... Devils' Conspiracy Theorist? thought. What if this is actually an anti-cheating technique??? Here's my crazy line of thinking:
1. Player A assumes that Player B will simply cut Player A's deck when presented rather than shuffle it since that is arguably the most common practice.
2. If Player A knows that Player B will cut Player A's deck when presented, then Player A knows with virtual certainty that the bottom card at the time of deck presentment will NOT be the top card.
3. With this information, Player A can try to force an unwanted card to the bottom, reducing the chances (even if it's by a fraction of a percentage point) of a bad draw.
4. If Player B suspects that Player A does this, then shuffling the bottom card to the top will punish Player A by giving that player exactly what they don't want.
Granted, both Player A and Player B would be cheating in this scenario, but is this even a remotely plausible explanation that accounts for the suspicious shuffling technique? That way it doesn't even matter where you're looking.
I've actually done that before. If I suspect someone is positioning cards for a favorable cut, I will only cut the bottom half of the deck.
EDIT: In that scenario player B technically is not cheating because they do not know what that card is.
Something tells me axman would be an easy person to cheat.
Yep. Somehow I doubt that axman would feel exactly the same way that he feels now if he had to personally play Mr. Boettcher. I really would love to see axman on the opposite side of Boettcher on camera.
Maybe he is just saying that there is reasonable doubt. Obviously this is for the DCI to decide, but the evidence at least looks incriminating.
Wait, are we saying that Jared Boettcher is cheating? This is a massive thread, could someone please post the facts of this? It is possible, but if he were cheating, why does he always lose to Tom "The Boss" Ross? And don't give me a cutesy answer that it's because Tom is a boss.
Also, why was Alex Bertoncheatyface banned again?
It seems like Jared is looking at a card quickly, sliding it to the top, and then continuing to shuffle while leaving the card on top. Against some players, he probably can't be quite as obvious. Changing one card can win the game, but it also may not. One card is not enough to beat a Boss , but it is still cheating. Or else, we would play a different game where an opponent can always choose the top card of our library. This is a different game than I personally play.
Alex was caught doing the same things as before, essentially not putting cards back after a Brainstorm during a complicated stack, drawing 4 cards and putting 2 back off Brainstorm, etc.
You can't actually tell that he is looking at the card that he puts on the top.
Therefore there is no incriminating evidence (smoking gun, if you will). And yes it is for that reason that I've been arguing that
Maybe he is just saying that there is reasonable doubt
.
That is exactly what I'm saying.
Just remember, doubt and reasonable doubt are not the same thing. The evidence we have is reasonably incriminating. At least for a thorough investigation. This is a matter of induction, not deduction. You don't need 100% certainty. (You could never have that here anyway.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Until you have lived as a statue, do not talk to me of pigeons."
—Karn, silver golem
I don't get why someone would keep the top few cards of a deck in place (which he clearly does in the videos that were posted) without knowing what those cards are. I don't know what world we live in where stacking someone's deck for fun without knowing how they're stacking it is something people actually do, and I think that's what Axman is trying to argue.
Part of creating a reasonable doubt is providing a plausible alternative explanation for the seemingly fishy behavior. I haven't seen that kind of alternative explanation from anyone here that is trying to play devil's advocate. Give me a logical alternative and I'd be a lot more doubtful about him being a cheater.
Best I could come up with was post 275 of this thread, bottom of page 11.
Whoa, I just had a crazy... Devils' Conspiracy Theorist? thought. What if this is actually an anti-cheating technique??? Here's my crazy line of thinking:
1. Player A assumes that Player B will simply cut Player A's deck when presented rather than shuffle it since that is arguably the most common practice.
2. If Player A knows that Player B will cut Player A's deck when presented, then Player A knows with virtual certainty that the bottom card at the time of deck presentment will NOT be the top card.
3. With this information, Player A can try to force an unwanted card to the bottom, reducing the chances (even if it's by a fraction of a percentage point) of a bad draw.
4. If Player B suspects that Player A does this, then shuffling the bottom card to the top will punish Player A by giving that player exactly what they don't want.
Granted, both Player A and Player B would be cheating in this scenario, but is this even a remotely plausible explanation that accounts for the suspicious shuffling technique? That way it doesn't even matter where you're looking.
I've actually done that before. If I suspect someone is positioning cards for a favorable cut, I will only cut the bottom half of the deck.
EDIT: In that scenario player B technically is not cheating because they do not know what that card is.
If this was a one-time thing it could be plausible, although unlikely. But seeing him repeatedly shuffle like that pretty much rules that theory out IMO.
I do want to make it clear that while my guess is that he has been cheating, I wouldn't ban him based on the reddit compilations alone (unlike the Trevor stuff, which was so blatant that I would happily insta-ban after a few viewings). His shuffling is very suspicious and hopefully enough to instigate an investigation by the DCI. But it would only be fair to him to do a really thorough investigation before any punishments were handed down. IMO that means going back and looking at ALL of the video they have of him, then breaking it down critically. Is he always "normal" shuffling his and "cheaty" shuffling the opponents' or are we seeing the results of cherry-picking by the redditers? Does his shuffle change at all based on the situation? Is he still cheaty shuffling opponents' decks when he is very likely to win a game? How about when it is clear that the opponent is either flooded or screwed, does that change his technique or do we see aberrant statistical outcomes for their draws? How often are opponents drawing lands after he shuffles their decks vs how often they would on average?
Part of creating a reasonable doubt is providing a plausible alternative explanation for the seemingly fishy behavior. I haven't seen that kind of alternative explanation from anyone here that is trying to play devil's advocate. Give me a logical alternative and I'd be a lot more doubtful about him being a cheater.
Best I could come up with was post 275 of this thread, bottom of page 11.
Whoa, I just had a crazy... Devils' Conspiracy Theorist? thought. What if this is actually an anti-cheating technique??? Here's my crazy line of thinking:
1. Player A assumes that Player B will simply cut Player A's deck when presented rather than shuffle it since that is arguably the most common practice.
2. If Player A knows that Player B will cut Player A's deck when presented, then Player A knows with virtual certainty that the bottom card at the time of deck presentment will NOT be the top card.
3. With this information, Player A can try to force an unwanted card to the bottom, reducing the chances (even if it's by a fraction of a percentage point) of a bad draw.
4. If Player B suspects that Player A does this, then shuffling the bottom card to the top will punish Player A by giving that player exactly what they don't want.
Granted, both Player A and Player B would be cheating in this scenario, but is this even a remotely plausible explanation that accounts for the suspicious shuffling technique? That way it doesn't even matter where you're looking.
I've actually done that before. If I suspect someone is positioning cards for a favorable cut, I will only cut the bottom half of the deck.
EDIT: In that scenario player B technically is not cheating because they do not know what that card is.
If this was a one-time thing it could be plausible, although unlikely. But seeing him repeatedly shuffle like that pretty much rules that theory out IMO.
I do want to make it clear that while my guess is that he has been cheating, I wouldn't ban him based on the reddit compilations alone (unlike the Trevor stuff, which was so blatant that I would happily insta-ban after a few viewings). His shuffling is very suspicious and hopefully enough to instigate an investigation by the DCI. But it would only be fair to him to do a really thorough investigation before any punishments were handed down. IMO that means going back and looking at ALL of the video they have of him, then breaking it down critically. Is he always "normal" shuffling his and "cheaty" shuffling the opponents' or are we seeing the results of cherry-picking by the redditers? Does his shuffle change at all based on the situation? Is he still cheaty shuffling opponents' decks when he is very likely to win a game? How about when it is clear that the opponent is either flooded or screwed, does that change his technique or do we see aberrant statistical outcomes for their draws? How often are opponents drawing lands after he shuffles their decks vs how often they would on average?
This is where we disagree. If you suspect people will try to cheat, and you are shuffling to prevent that sort of cheat, you will shuffle that way every game.
I would like an explanation for why Jared shuffles his opponent's deck the way he does.
The Player A/B explanation is far-fetched, as we do not have evidence that in these cases Player A ever manipulated their own deck before presenting it to Jared (as well as considering the most minute chance that this would ever actually help Player A, it doesn't pass the risk/reward part of the test).
I would like an explanation for why Jared shuffles his opponent's deck the way he does.
The Player A/B explanation is far-fetched, as we do not have evidence that in these cases Player A ever manipulated their own deck before presenting it to Jared (as well as considering the most minute chance that this would ever actually help Player A, it doesn't pass the risk/reward part of the test).
It doesn't matter if Player A actually manipulated the deck. The devil's advocate theory is based on the FEAR that player A would, if given the opportunity, manipulate their deck.
Part of creating a reasonable doubt is providing a plausible alternative explanation for the seemingly fishy behavior. I haven't seen that kind of alternative explanation from anyone here that is trying to play devil's advocate. Give me a logical alternative and I'd be a lot more doubtful about him being a cheater.
Best I could come up with was post 275 of this thread, bottom of page 11.
Whoa, I just had a crazy... Devils' Conspiracy Theorist? thought. What if this is actually an anti-cheating technique??? Here's my crazy line of thinking:
1. Player A assumes that Player B will simply cut Player A's deck when presented rather than shuffle it since that is arguably the most common practice.
2. If Player A knows that Player B will cut Player A's deck when presented, then Player A knows with virtual certainty that the bottom card at the time of deck presentment will NOT be the top card.
3. With this information, Player A can try to force an unwanted card to the bottom, reducing the chances (even if it's by a fraction of a percentage point) of a bad draw.
4. If Player B suspects that Player A does this, then shuffling the bottom card to the top will punish Player A by giving that player exactly what they don't want.
Granted, both Player A and Player B would be cheating in this scenario, but is this even a remotely plausible explanation that accounts for the suspicious shuffling technique? That way it doesn't even matter where you're looking.
I've actually done that before. If I suspect someone is positioning cards for a favorable cut, I will only cut the bottom half of the deck.
EDIT: In that scenario player B technically is not cheating because they do not know what that card is.
If this was a one-time thing it could be plausible, although unlikely. But seeing him repeatedly shuffle like that pretty much rules that theory out IMO.
I do want to make it clear that while my guess is that he has been cheating, I wouldn't ban him based on the reddit compilations alone (unlike the Trevor stuff, which was so blatant that I would happily insta-ban after a few viewings). His shuffling is very suspicious and hopefully enough to instigate an investigation by the DCI. But it would only be fair to him to do a really thorough investigation before any punishments were handed down. IMO that means going back and looking at ALL of the video they have of him, then breaking it down critically. Is he always "normal" shuffling his and "cheaty" shuffling the opponents' or are we seeing the results of cherry-picking by the redditers? Does his shuffle change at all based on the situation? Is he still cheaty shuffling opponents' decks when he is very likely to win a game? How about when it is clear that the opponent is either flooded or screwed, does that change his technique or do we see aberrant statistical outcomes for their draws? How often are opponents drawing lands after he shuffles their decks vs how often they would on average?
This is where we disagree. If you suspect people will try to cheat, and you are shuffling to prevent that sort of cheat, you will shuffle that way every game.
1. Any shuffle prevents the cheat, this corner case just tries to take advantage of it.
2. At competitive events players almost always shuffle each others decks, so the base assumption (a predictable cut) is unlikely to be true. That alone makes this a very poor explanation for this kind of shuffling at a competitive level.
It doesn't matter if Player A actually manipulated the deck. The devil's advocate theory is based on the FEAR that player A would, if given the opportunity, manipulate their deck.
There's a lot of that going around now!
Although, if this scenario is in any way feasible (and I don't believe it is), your opponent just has to put a card he does want on the bottom, making this an implausible 'defense'.
At the TCG MaxPoint I went to this weekend, it seemed like a lot of people were going the extra mile to make it clear they weren't looking at their opponents' decks while shuffling them. While it's good that cheaters get caught, I am worried that the playing environment may become somewhat toxic as a result, with well-meaning players being afraid of doing something wrong that will lead to accusations of cheating.
This whole business is just giving me another reason to stick to my decision not to shuffle my opponent's deck. I usually go with a 2-4 stack cut instead. If I don't shuffle my opponent's deck, I don't have to ever worry about doing something wrong in the shuffling process that leads to suspicion. This is on top of my previous reasons (I am clumsy when it comes to shuffling and I don't want to get a warning for accidentally spilling my opponent's deck on the table with cards landing face up, and also I don't want to completely mess up a mash-shuffle and damage my opponent's expensive cards).
At the TCG MaxPoint I went to this weekend, it seemed like a lot of people were going the extra mile to make it clear they weren't looking at their opponents' decks while shuffling them. While it's good that cheaters get caught, I am worried that the playing environment may become somewhat toxic as a result, with well-meaning players being afraid of doing something wrong that will lead to accusations of cheating.
This whole business is just giving me another reason to stick to my decision not to shuffle my opponent's deck. I usually go with a 2-4 stack cut instead. If I don't shuffle my opponent's deck, I don't have to ever worry about doing something wrong in the shuffling process that leads to suspicion. This is on top of my previous reasons (I am clumsy when it comes to shuffling and I don't want to get a warning for accidentally spilling my opponent's deck on the table with cards landing face up, and also I don't want to completely mess up a mash-shuffle and damage my opponent's expensive cards).
I would argue that what you are talking about is already happening. Rules lawyering is a thing. And that leads people to be extra careful about accidently drawing extra cards or somehow having an illegal deck... or all the little things they could get a game loss over. Something that the majority of people probably wouldn't make a big deal over if they knew it was completely innocent. But occasionally you run into guys that like to use any means necessary to win and because of those guys you have to be on guard.
I think in the case of the shuffling thing, you have even less to worry about because it's really hard to catch that kind of cheating. It's only been caught on camera IIRC. And I don't think people are going to just openly accuse their opponents of cheating to their face.
At the TCG MaxPoint I went to this weekend, it seemed like a lot of people were going the extra mile to make it clear they weren't looking at their opponents' decks while shuffling them. While it's good that cheaters get caught, I am worried that the playing environment may become somewhat toxic as a result, with well-meaning players being afraid of doing something wrong that will lead to accusations of cheating.
This whole business is just giving me another reason to stick to my decision not to shuffle my opponent's deck. I usually go with a 2-4 stack cut instead. If I don't shuffle my opponent's deck, I don't have to ever worry about doing something wrong in the shuffling process that leads to suspicion. This is on top of my previous reasons (I am clumsy when it comes to shuffling and I don't want to get a warning for accidentally spilling my opponent's deck on the table with cards landing face up, and also I don't want to completely mess up a mash-shuffle and damage my opponent's expensive cards).
I would argue that what you are talking about is already happening. Rules lawyering is a thing. And that leads people to be extra careful about accidently drawing extra cards or somehow having an illegal deck... or all the little things they could get a game loss over. Something that the majority of people probably wouldn't make a big deal over if they knew it was completely innocent. But occasionally you run into guys that like to use any means necessary to win and because of those guys you have to be on guard.
I think in the case of the shuffling thing, you have even less to worry about because it's really hard to catch that kind of cheating. It's only been caught on camera IIRC. And I don't think people are going to just openly accuse their opponents of cheating to their face.
Agreed. You should shuffle your opponents' decks, period. You are much more likely to suffer because you don't shuffle than because you do, as opponents insufficiently randomizing is going to come up a lot more than what you are talking about.
If you aren't cheating then you have nothing to worry about when shuffling an opponent's deck. Heck, even if you WERE cheating you probably wouldn't have to worry about it unless you were playing on camera or with a judge right on top of you, due to the nature of the cheat. Individual incidents will basically always be "he said/she said" sans video evidence. Worst case in either case (i.e. really cheating or falsely accused) is probably a warning.
And even THEN, putting A singular card, on top, and knowing what it is.. doesn't seem THAT detrimental, you don't know their hand, you're not sculpting it. Yeah it's against the rules, but it doesn't seem like he's 'looking for a land' while shuffling to put it on top. He cuts it numerous times on top of that. The top card doesn't change. So what?
Manipulating one single card to be on top of your opponent's deck is certainly not very effective when we are talking about opening hands (it's still blatant cheating, of course, but it's not very effective). However, it becomes a lot more effective later in the game, when your opponent already has plenty of lands on the board and drawing yet another land will be basically a useless card in their hand. That's when manipulating a single land on top of their deck is effective: You are making sure they are drawing a dead card instead of something useful.
That's exactly my point.
We don't have video footage of where Jared Boettcher's head is looking when he's shuffling the cards in the mid-game after fetch shuffles.
We do have video footage of where Jared Boettcher's head is looking during the pre-game shuffle. And that is with his head turned away from the cards.
However one thing to note. And I think I need a judge to clarify this, but I recall hearing about it.
Player A presents his deck to an opponent, the opponent, Player B, mash cut shuffles/riffle shuffles. Player A is entitled to cut their own deck after.
However to prevent things like this in the future, it might be necessary for feature matches to provide a 2 camera base, one with looking at the players, and one with their hands while shuffling. It's not exactly a huge problem to have a 2 camera set up.
It used to be a rule that you were entitled to have last cut after your opponent shuffled your deck after you shuffled your deck, however that rule was removed a while ago.
As for Buehler having inside information, well it makes some since since his wife still works for WOTC, so she could have possibly heard something, or he could have heard something from one of the people he knows that still works at WOTC. There's no telling yet as to when a suspension will be announced, however with how swift the response to Trevor, it will probably be this week, when they update the DCI banned members list.
The most damning thing about this is how completely silent on twitter Boettcher has been since his one tweet about the DCI investigation got demolished as it because clear what that investigation was actually about (bribery and collusion). If you were innocent, wouldn't you be angry or upset and say as much? After Boettcher's one lie got destroyed, he's said nothing. And that in of itself tells a lot.
It used to be a rule that you were entitled to have last cut after your opponent shuffled your deck after you shuffled your deck, however that rule was removed a while ago.
As for Buehler having inside information, well it makes some since since his wife still works for WOTC, so she could have possibly heard something, or he could have heard something from one of the people he knows that still works at WOTC. There's no telling yet as to when a suspension will be announced, however with how swift the response to Trevor, it will probably be this week, when they update the DCI banned members list.
The most damning thing about this is how completely silent on twitter Boettcher has been since his one tweet about the DCI investigation got demolished as it because clear what that investigation was actually about (bribery and collusion). If you were innocent, wouldn't you be angry or upset and say as much? After Boettcher's one lie got destroyed, he's said nothing. And that in of itself tells a lot.
I'd be surprised if Buehler has inside information. That would have to violate Wizards internal rules and regulations... which I doubt any sane person would risk over a card game.
Also... silence does not equate to being guilty.
Not invested in this discussion. But with a quick look at the reddit post it seems pretty obvious to me that he's doing something fishy. He puts the bottom card on the top and then goes out of his way to not touch it again.
The only concern I have about the "number of mulligans" accusations is that this is sometimes a function of a player's deck. Like, playing aggro you have a lot less "Let's see what happens" keep hands then you do versus control, especially in slower formats.
Is that an unfounded concern?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yep. Somehow I doubt that axman would feel exactly the same way that he feels now if he had to personally play Mr. Boettcher. I really would love to see axman on the opposite side of Boettcher on camera.
Maybe he is just saying that there is reasonable doubt. Obviously this is for the DCI to decide, but the evidence at least looks incriminating.
It seems like Jared is looking at a card quickly, sliding it to the top, and then continuing to shuffle while leaving the card on top. Against some players, he probably can't be quite as obvious. Changing one card can win the game, but it also may not. One card is not enough to beat a Boss , but it is still cheating. Or else, we would play a different game where an opponent can always choose the top card of our library. This is a different game than I personally play.
Alex was caught doing the same things as before, essentially not putting cards back after a Brainstorm during a complicated stack, drawing 4 cards and putting 2 back off Brainstorm, etc.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)You can't actually tell that he is looking at the card that he puts on the top.
Therefore there is no incriminating evidence (smoking gun, if you will). And yes it is for that reason that I've been arguing that .
That is exactly what I'm saying.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Watch his eyes in the videos, he's not looking at the deck to get information.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you understand the difference between proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which I've seen you previously mention, and proof "beyond all reasonable doubt," which is the standard burden of proof for criminal convictions. When it comes to proof, even in the context of criminal trials, you don't have to dispel all possible doubts; just the reasonable ones.
Once you factor in that 1. this is not a criminal trial, and 2. this is just a discussion on an internet forum, it's also not really clear why a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard should even apply. Additionally, since this thread is grounded in speculative accusations, at best we're more akin to a grand jury, where the standard is mere probable cause.
I think this also explains why people get defensive when they are accused of witch-hunting: witch-hunting implies baseless accusation, but I don't see how anyone can view these videos and conclude that anyone who thinks Jared probably cheated is unequivocally incorrect. Maybe the term 'grand-jurying' is more appropriate, because I look at these videos and think to myself, if the DCI doesn't investigate this, there's something wrong with the system.
Great post. Again I'd ask axman, if he isn't cheating then what explains his shuffling technique? Particularly how it subtly changes from his deck to his opponents' such that one card is often moved to and kept at the top of his opponents' deck?
Part of creating a reasonable doubt is providing a plausible alternative explanation for the seemingly fishy behavior. I haven't seen that kind of alternative explanation from anyone here that is trying to play devil's advocate. Give me a logical alternative and I'd be a lot more doubtful about him being a cheater.
True. Perhaps "witch-hunt" was too strong of a word.
The main reason I used that word was simply because (to my knowledge) these accusations of cheating began 100% online. The accusations originated from people who made it their goal to thumb through video footage to find "speciousness activity" and label that activity as "cheating".
To my knowledge, there were zero real life complaints about his shuffling. I do not believe anyone asked him to shuffle differently and/or called a judge to question it.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Best I could come up with was post 275 of this thread, bottom of page 11.
I've actually done that before. If I suspect someone is positioning cards for a favorable cut, I will only cut the bottom half of the deck.
EDIT: In that scenario player B technically is not cheating because they do not know what that card is.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Just remember, doubt and reasonable doubt are not the same thing. The evidence we have is reasonably incriminating. At least for a thorough investigation. This is a matter of induction, not deduction. You don't need 100% certainty. (You could never have that here anyway.)
—Karn, silver golem
If this was a one-time thing it could be plausible, although unlikely. But seeing him repeatedly shuffle like that pretty much rules that theory out IMO.
I do want to make it clear that while my guess is that he has been cheating, I wouldn't ban him based on the reddit compilations alone (unlike the Trevor stuff, which was so blatant that I would happily insta-ban after a few viewings). His shuffling is very suspicious and hopefully enough to instigate an investigation by the DCI. But it would only be fair to him to do a really thorough investigation before any punishments were handed down. IMO that means going back and looking at ALL of the video they have of him, then breaking it down critically. Is he always "normal" shuffling his and "cheaty" shuffling the opponents' or are we seeing the results of cherry-picking by the redditers? Does his shuffle change at all based on the situation? Is he still cheaty shuffling opponents' decks when he is very likely to win a game? How about when it is clear that the opponent is either flooded or screwed, does that change his technique or do we see aberrant statistical outcomes for their draws? How often are opponents drawing lands after he shuffles their decks vs how often they would on average?
This is where we disagree. If you suspect people will try to cheat, and you are shuffling to prevent that sort of cheat, you will shuffle that way every game.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
The Player A/B explanation is far-fetched, as we do not have evidence that in these cases Player A ever manipulated their own deck before presenting it to Jared (as well as considering the most minute chance that this would ever actually help Player A, it doesn't pass the risk/reward part of the test).
It doesn't matter if Player A actually manipulated the deck. The devil's advocate theory is based on the FEAR that player A would, if given the opportunity, manipulate their deck.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
1. Any shuffle prevents the cheat, this corner case just tries to take advantage of it.
2. At competitive events players almost always shuffle each others decks, so the base assumption (a predictable cut) is unlikely to be true. That alone makes this a very poor explanation for this kind of shuffling at a competitive level.
There's a lot of that going around now!
Although, if this scenario is in any way feasible (and I don't believe it is), your opponent just has to put a card he does want on the bottom, making this an implausible 'defense'.
This whole business is just giving me another reason to stick to my decision not to shuffle my opponent's deck. I usually go with a 2-4 stack cut instead. If I don't shuffle my opponent's deck, I don't have to ever worry about doing something wrong in the shuffling process that leads to suspicion. This is on top of my previous reasons (I am clumsy when it comes to shuffling and I don't want to get a warning for accidentally spilling my opponent's deck on the table with cards landing face up, and also I don't want to completely mess up a mash-shuffle and damage my opponent's expensive cards).
I would argue that what you are talking about is already happening. Rules lawyering is a thing. And that leads people to be extra careful about accidently drawing extra cards or somehow having an illegal deck... or all the little things they could get a game loss over. Something that the majority of people probably wouldn't make a big deal over if they knew it was completely innocent. But occasionally you run into guys that like to use any means necessary to win and because of those guys you have to be on guard.
I think in the case of the shuffling thing, you have even less to worry about because it's really hard to catch that kind of cheating. It's only been caught on camera IIRC. And I don't think people are going to just openly accuse their opponents of cheating to their face.
Agreed. You should shuffle your opponents' decks, period. You are much more likely to suffer because you don't shuffle than because you do, as opponents insufficiently randomizing is going to come up a lot more than what you are talking about.
If you aren't cheating then you have nothing to worry about when shuffling an opponent's deck. Heck, even if you WERE cheating you probably wouldn't have to worry about it unless you were playing on camera or with a judge right on top of you, due to the nature of the cheat. Individual incidents will basically always be "he said/she said" sans video evidence. Worst case in either case (i.e. really cheating or falsely accused) is probably a warning.
That's exactly my point.
We don't have video footage of where Jared Boettcher's head is looking when he's shuffling the cards in the mid-game after fetch shuffles.
We do have video footage of where Jared Boettcher's head is looking during the pre-game shuffle. And that is with his head turned away from the cards.
However one thing to note. And I think I need a judge to clarify this, but I recall hearing about it.
Player A presents his deck to an opponent, the opponent, Player B, mash cut shuffles/riffle shuffles. Player A is entitled to cut their own deck after.
However to prevent things like this in the future, it might be necessary for feature matches to provide a 2 camera base, one with looking at the players, and one with their hands while shuffling. It's not exactly a huge problem to have a 2 camera set up.
As for Buehler having inside information, well it makes some since since his wife still works for WOTC, so she could have possibly heard something, or he could have heard something from one of the people he knows that still works at WOTC. There's no telling yet as to when a suspension will be announced, however with how swift the response to Trevor, it will probably be this week, when they update the DCI banned members list.
The most damning thing about this is how completely silent on twitter Boettcher has been since his one tweet about the DCI investigation got demolished as it because clear what that investigation was actually about (bribery and collusion). If you were innocent, wouldn't you be angry or upset and say as much? After Boettcher's one lie got destroyed, he's said nothing. And that in of itself tells a lot.
I'd be surprised if Buehler has inside information. That would have to violate Wizards internal rules and regulations... which I doubt any sane person would risk over a card game.
Also... silence does not equate to being guilty.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
http://gfycat.com/ImpressionableDizzyIceblueredtopzebra
also in this gif it's pretty obvious he purposely squeezes the top card twice to arch it up for some reason.
Is that an unfounded concern?